JAYAGOPAL RATHISH,CHENGALPATTU - SPKOIL vs. ITO TDS TAMBARAM, TAMABARAM CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4149/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 September 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing sufficient cause. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in transport and logistic services, failed to provide details regarding payments on which TDS was not deducted, as reported in Form 3CD. The Assessing Officer passed ex-parte orders for TDS and interest. The appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed in limine due to a 60-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and whether the ex-parte assessment orders should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 13.07.2026Pronounced: 08.09.2026

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

These two appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year 2021-22 and 2022- 23, vide both the orders dated 16.10.2025, dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment orders passed by the AO, TDS, Tambaram

:-2-: ITA. No:4150 & 4149/Chny/2025. u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 19.09.2024. 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of Transport & Logistic Services. As per the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has disclosed an amount of Rs.98,08,764/- for A.Y 2021-22 and amount of Rs.2,80,74,427/- for A.Y 2022-23 in the Form 3CD as “Payment on which TDS not deducted”. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee failed to furnish the details called for. Since the assessee choose to be silent and failed to respond to any of the notices, the AO created demand of Rs.5,06,179/- for AY 2021-22 and Rs.16,96,210/- for A.Y 2022-23 as TDS payable u/s.201(1) of the Act and demand of Rs.2,12,595/- for A.Y 2021-22 and Rs.5,08,865/- for A.Y 2022-23 as interest payable u/s.201(1A) of the Act and concluded the assessment by passing an exparte orders u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act dated 19.09.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee preferred two separate appeals before the ld.CIT(A) on 24.12.2024 with a delay in filing the appeals.

4.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee in limine due to delay in filing the appeals by 60 days. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. We note that the none appeared before us also for representing the assessee’s appeal.

5.

Per contra, the ld.DR supported the order of lower authorities and prayed for dismissing the same.

6.

We have heard the ld.DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has :-3-: ITA. No:4150 & 4149/Chny/2025. passed an exparte orders by considering the information available with the department and on appeal the same have been dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A) due to delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority, without adjudicating on merits.

7.

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and in order to advance the cause of substantial justice, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) are hereby condoned, as the assessee has duly set out the reasons for such delay in Form No.35, which in our considered opinion, constitutes sufficient cause. Consequently, the impugned orders of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and to furnish necessary written submissions and relevant evidence, as may be called for, in a timely manner.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th September, 2026 at Chennai. (मनु कुमार गिरर) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

चेन्नई/Chennai, दिन ां90क/Dated, the 08th September 2026 Devadas

:-4-: ITA. No:4150 & 4149/Chny/2025. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.09.10 17:43:13 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →